MR ByronLord I do not believe the NRA has ever or will ever sponsor a mass murder if you think they have would you please show some facts!

That's a bit like saying that the Nazi Party, which started as a gang of unemployed soldiers in 1919, was not responsible for the Holocaust. Of course the NRA are responsible. They may not pull the trigger but they lobby and campaign for an individual's freedom to behave like a cowboy. “When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”

Per the Center for Disease Control, latest figures (2005) show 30,694 firearm deaths (all races, all ages, both sexes) in the United States.For that same year, there were 43,443 automobile accident deaths in the United States."

Per the Center for Disease Control, latest figures (2005) show 30,694 firearm deaths (all races, all ages, both sexes) in the United States.For that same year, there were 43,443 automobile accident deaths in the United States."

do not use facts it only confuses the liberal.

Cars aren't designed, built, and distributed primarily to kill. Guns are. We don't learn anything by comparing guns and cars. We might as well compare guns and DVD players.

Do not pick apart stupid talking points, it only confuses those that mindlessly repeat them.

Ok i know i may get alto of flack on this but its not the guns or the cars that kill, it is those using them. So if take all the guns away, soshould also take the cars away for all the drunk driver deaths?? We need to speak up about those we know that may cause harm to so.done else, we are so fast to a blind eye until so.thing like this happens. Then its the quick reactions of those that don't take the time to see what the root of the problem was for this person and why no one said hey there is something wrong with Johnny.. Take a look at great Britain at point their police did not carry weapons and look at them now . Stop and ask why, what went wrong ???

I'm not getting fully into this whole debate as I don't really understand the details well enough. I'm against guns but I know it's never going to be as simple as outlawing firearms. I don't have answers, I'm just curious about one thing:

What is the main motivation for people to own a gun? It's something so outside my own culture and background that I genuinely can't get my head round the want or need for a gun.

Now, people hunt for sport - I get that. I don't like it, but I respect that and see that as a valid reason to own a gun. However, people in Britain can still hunt for sport despite our comparatively very strict gun laws. My grandfather owned guns for many years; I used to help him make bullets. If this is the main reason for owning a gun, why not do like Britain do?

Is it protection? I think it would be very sad if this was the main reason; I would hate to live in a place where I could only feel safe by owning a gun. I'm not blaming anyone or anything for that, I just find it upsetting and a much more difficult problem to solve.

Or are people in the US so attached to guns because it's their constitutional right? Or some other reason?

Seriously interested Brit, here. No judgement of those on either side of the debate. Britain has a lot of issues with knife crime at the moment and there's no easy solution forthcoming.

Joined: 7/17/2011Posts: 2,301Location: Exactly where I should be!, Canada

clum wrote:

I'm not getting fully into this whole debate as I don't really understand the details well enough. I'm against guns but I know it's never going to be as simple as outlawing firearms. I don't have answers, I'm just curious about one thing:

What is the main motivation for people to own a gun? It's something so outside my own culture and background that I genuinely can't get my head round the want or need for a gun.

Now, people hunt for sport - I get that. I don't like it, but I respect that and see that as a valid reason to own a gun. However, people in Britain can still hunt for sport despite our comparatively very strict gun laws. My grandfather owned guns for many years; I used to help him make bullets. If this is the main reason for owning a gun, why not do like Britain do?

Is it protection? I think it would be very sad if this was the main reason; I would hate to live in a place where I could only feel safe by owning a gun. I'm not blaming anyone or anything for that, I just find it upsetting and a much more difficult problem to solve.

Or are people in the US so attached to guns because it's their constitutional right? Or some other reason?

Seriously interested Brit, here. No judgement of those on either side of the debate. Britain has a lot of issues with knife crime at the moment and there's no easy solution forthcoming.

I agree with Clum, as a Canadian and a Canadian living in Britain (North london at that hahahaha), I wonder the same. I've never required a gun, for protection, and I'm still here.

To me the purpose of a gun is to shoot it, and if you are not a hunter, then what is your target exactly??? Maybe the fact that your neighbour has a gun is the reason you have a gun and so on and so on.

People are quick to point out all the crimes that could have been prevented if all the guns were to be taken away, but what about all the crimes that have been prevented by guns? All the lives that have been saved because of responsible civillians who own guns and use them for self defense. Thousands of these events happen ever year, but they rarely make the news unless it's a slow news day or something.

There are several instances where a potential victim draws their weapon and the assailant flees, but those never make the news, have you ever seen the headline, "Woman about to be assaulted, draws gun, masked man flees." That's simply because it's not as sensational as "Woman assaulted found dead in park." I've found a list of examples where guns have helped save lives, all are from news articles around the web

1) On June 28, 2010, a South Carolina farmer returned from selling homegrown produce to find an intruder at his home. The farmer held the criminal at gunpoint until authorities arrived. (Who knows what would have happened to him if he hadn't had his weapon)

2) On April 15, 2010, Roger Dale Ramsey, 63, of Shelby, North Carolina, returned home around midnight. Ramsey heard noises in the house—and then saw “a suspect step out of his bedroom into the dining room.” Ramsey pointed a gun, and ordered the intruder to halt. Instead, the burglar “leapt out the bedroom window on the east side and ran.”

3) On February 9, 2010, a Modesto, California woman came home in the middle of the morning and discovered evidence of a burglary. She armed herself, confronted the burglar, and because “she feared for her safety” fired one shot—apparently not hitting the intruder—who fled the scene.

4) On September 2, 2009, a young boy in Arizona confronted burglars entering his home. When two juvenile burglars forced entry through the back door, the boy ran to a neighbor’s house. Before the police arrived, the boy’s father had returned to the house, grabbed his gun, and took one of the burglars into custody. The police, who arrived shortly thereafter, arrested the other burglar as he jumped from the second story. (Can you imagine what the headlines might have read if he hadn't been able to arm himself?)

5) On January 21, 2009, Gabriel Flores, 17, “kicked in the door of a home” in Dallas, Texas, and provoked a deadly response. While Flores was inside, the adult son of one of the homeowners happened to show up to drop off a newspaper. The son confronted Flores. Flores drew a gun and fired at the son—but the son, who has a concealed handgun license, drew his gun, shooting and killing Flores.

6) On April 6, 2004, a Spokane, Washington burglary also involved shots fired—but no apparent injuries. Two burglars kicked in a door of a rural farmhouse—but then beat a hasty retreat when the homeowner fired a shot from a .22 semi-automatic target pistol over their heads.

7) On May 4, 2009, two masked men with guns burst into a home in College Park, Georgia, while a birthday party was in progress. Ten people, some of them college students, were inside the apartment. The intruders separated the men from the women. One of the intruders started counting his bullets; the other asked how many bullets he had. “He said he had enough.” It does not take much imagination to figure out that there were going to be no witnesses. At this point, one of the students managed to reach into his backpack, pull out a gun, and shoot one of the intruders, who then fled the apartment wounded. The student then ran into the room where the other intruder, Calvin Lavant, 23, was starting to assault a young woman. The armed student told the naked woman to get down and shot Lavant, who then jumped out the window.

While I'm not saying that every single person who owns a gun will be able to use it effectively if the situation arises. To simply take all the guns away leaves many law-abiding civillians vulnerable and gives those who will obtain their guns illegally no matter what laws are passed an unfair advantage. I do believe however, that there should be stricter gun control.

If you are a person who is moral enough not to commit massacres, then you do not need a law making it harder for you to commit massacres.The school’s principal on Friday was killed when she lunged to take the killer’s gun from him. He shot her. She and 25 others, 18 of whom were kids, would still be alive today if she had shot him instead of trying to take his gun. Why didn’t she shoot him instead?The school was a gun-free zone. Why didn’t the shooter obey the school’s no-gun policy? Why didn’t the shooter think, “Oh, we can’t bring guns to this school? Well, crap, there go my shooting-spree plans”?You know what does not stop bullets from hitting kids? The backs of teachers. You know what does stop a bullets from hitting kids? A gun in the hands of a good person.The shooter, Adam Lanza, had a mental disability. Current law dictates that he’s not allowed to own any gun, period. So what we saw yesterday was the effect of a 100-percent ban on guns for the shooter. Yet he got guns anyway, through illegal means. The gun ban did not stop him.This is the reality: Guns will always exist, as will evil. No gun ban will ever stop those who do not obey bans, nor those who are evil.

Joined: 7/17/2011Posts: 2,301Location: Exactly where I should be!, Canada

oldrascal wrote:

If you are a person who is moral enough not to commit massacres, then you do not need a law making it harder for you to commit massacres.The school’s principal on Friday was killed when she lunged to take the killer’s gun from him. He shot her. She and 25 others, 18 of whom were kids, would still be alive today if she had shot him instead of trying to take his gun. Why didn’t she shoot him instead?The school was a gun-free zone. Why didn’t the shooter obey the school’s no-gun policy? Why didn’t the shooter think, “Oh, we can’t bring guns to this school? Well, crap, there go my shooting-spree plans”?You know what does not stop bullets from hitting kids? The backs of teachers. You know what does stop a bullets from hitting kids? A gun in the hands of a good person.The shooter, Adam Lanza, had a mental disability. Current law dictates that he’s not allowed to own any gun, period. So what we saw yesterday was the effect of a 100-percent ban on guns for the shooter. Yet he got guns anyway, through illegal means. The gun ban did not stop him.This is the reality: Guns will always exist, as will evil. No gun ban will ever stop those who do not obey bans, nor those who are evil.

People are quick to point out all the crimes that could have been prevented if all the guns were to be taken away, but what about all the crimes that have been prevented by guns? All the lives that have been saved because of responsible civillians who own guns and use them for self defense. Thousands of these events happen ever year, but they rarely make the news unless it's a slow news day or something.

...

While I'm not saying that every single person who owns a gun will be able to use it effectively if the situation arises. To simply take all the guns away leaves many law-abiding civillians vulnerable and gives those who will obtain their guns illegally no matter what laws are passed an unfair advantage. I do believe however, that there should be stricter gun control.

Valid; and thanks for the stories. Last year in my local area it was reported that a man attacked and raped someone in their own home. They easily broke in and used a knife from the kitchen as a weapon. It could be argued that they would have been better protected if they were armed. It could also be argued that both parties having guns would increase the probability of a fatality in that situation. (I'm not arguing either at this point, for the record).

A lot of people have been talking about "stricter gun control" in the last few days. What does that mean in real terms? Are there specific proposals people favour?

If you are a person who is moral enough not to commit massacres, then you do not need a law making it harder for you to commit massacres.

Unfortunately, the converse is not true. Those people who are immoral enough to commit massacres DO need a law making it harder for them to commit massacres. If not a new law, better enforcement of existing laws, or something.

[quote=oldrascal]This is the reality: Guns will always exist, as will evil. No gun ban will ever stop those who do not obey bans, nor those who are evil.[\quote]

I don't believe that is the reality. Even if it is, does that mean we should stop fighting against evil? That, in itself, is also evil surely.

Valid; and thanks for the stories. Last year in my local area it was reported that a man attacked and raped someone in their own home. They easily broke in and used a knife from the kitchen as a weapon. It could be argued that they would have been better protected if they were armed. It could also be argued that both parties having guns would increase the probability of a fatality in that situation. (I'm not arguing either at this point, for the record).

A lot of people have been talking about "stricter gun control" in the last few days. What does that mean in real terms? Are there specific proposals people favour?

Basically gun control is when gun sales are regulated or controlled by an authority. Currently, depending on where you live, it's ridiculously easy to get a gun. What the stricter control would be hasn't been decided yet, Obama made a few statements about starting something, but most people agree that before you obtain a gun, you should at least pass a mental health evaluation. There needs to be an age limit, criminal record checks (some places currently do that) and possibly evaluation of everyone in the household. I'm not sure if any specific proposals have been made yet (I admit, I haven't been avidly following the news).

Basically gun control is when gun sales are regulated or controlled by an authority. Currently, depending on where you live, it's ridiculously easy to get a gun. What the stricter control would be hasn't been decided yet, Obama made a few statements about starting something, but most people agree that before you obtain a gun, you should at least pass a mental health evaluation. There needs to be an age limit, criminal record checks (some places currently do that) and possibly evaluation of everyone in the household. I'm not sure if any specific proposals have been made yet (I admit, I haven't been avidly following the news).

Thanks. I'm actually a little surprised to hear that isn't all in place nationwide already. I know you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to obtain a firearms license in the UK; with the time and money you have to put in, it's not something anyone does on a whim. I hope the US does take some positive steps in this respect.

I can find you more if you'd like. I know many people who wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the fact that they carry a concealed weapon.

One is a surgeon who was on his way to operate on a patient that other people did not want to see survive. Another is a nurse who's forced to walk through a bad part of town every afternoon/evening to get home. Yet another is a school teacher who was targeted because she "looked defenseless" according to the stunned man who got shot in the shoulder when he tried to attack her (fyi, he had a knife).

Like I said before thousands of these episodes are not factored into statistics simply because they are not reported. If you scare away someone with your gun in a dark place, you can't exactly go to the police station and say, "Hey, some guy came at me, I waved my gun and he ran. I didn't get anything that we can identify him with." What would be the point of reporting it?

Valid; and thanks for the stories. Last year in my local area it was reported that a man attacked and raped someone in their own home. They easily broke in and used a knife from the kitchen as a weapon. It could be argued that they would have been better protected if they were armed. It could also be argued that both parties having guns would increase the probability of a fatality in that situation. (I'm not arguing either at this point, for the record).

A lot of people have been talking about "stricter gun control" in the last few days. What does that mean in real terms? Are there specific proposals people favour?

Typically, someone with a more liberal mindset will speak about "gun control" and people with a more conservative mindset hears "take away all our guns and leave us defenseless". Gun control is too broad a term. It's difficult to have an opinion either way with such a broad statement. "Stricter"... how much stricter?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

Seems simple enough, in the USA all it will take is the elimination of the 2nd Amendment. Then have the US Federal Government enforce the turn in of weapons, but, then the begins another problem, that pesky US Constitution has another clauses that prohibit the search and seizure of private property, without warrants to search and seize. and then there is the cost evolved.

Yes I agree to that! but to posess a semi automatic, machine gun, or whatever else than a hunting gun? You have alternative plans I think.?? I question that shit!

Plan, yes, leave the fucking US 2nd Amendment the hell alone. Machine guns are highly control, about 250 k US citizens own them legally.

This term semi- automatic weapon, I have a .22 pistol it is in this class, do you want to force me to give it up, or my gas operated shot gun with a duck plug, is that one that you would relieve me of too?

* "About 99.8% of firearms and more than 99.6% of handguns will not be used to commit violent crimes in any given year."[1]

* Reason for elimination: This statistic neglects key information such as the number of guns in the U.S. Thus, it can create a misleading impression, given that, in 2008, roughly 436,000 violent crimes were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[2] [3] [4]

2) This assertion is missing key information and can be deceptive because it accounts for murders committed with guns but fails to account for lives saved with guns. Hence, it neglects the primary issue, which is the overall rate of violent deaths. This is significant because, as the chart below shows, many states with higher gun ownership rates also have the lowest homicide rates:

[7]

* "Right-to-carry" states allow individuals to carry firearms for protection against crime. In these states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.[8]

* Reason for elimination: This data does not account for other factors that impact crime rates, such as cultural differences, arrest rates, illegitimacy rates, poverty, etc.

Note that many gun control studies attempt to control for such factors, but opposing sides inevitably point to other factors that are uncontrolled,[9] and due to data limitations, it is practically impossible to control for all relevant factors.[10] Conversely, some researchers fault studies that do not show significant results until the effects of controls are considered.[11]

In accordance with our mission to provide verifiable facts, Just Facts uses time-series data and lets this data speak for itself instead of subjecting it to statistical analyses. For example, we provide homicide rates in the state of Florida in the years leading up to and after passage of the Florida "right-to-carry" law. Such data does not prove cause and effect, but it does allow us to observe trends and limits the impact of numerous variables because the data is drawn from a large population set with limited demographic changes from year to year. To provide additional context, Just Facts sometimes provides comparative data (such as homicide rates for the nation as a whole over the same time period), but we provide this data in unadulterated form; we do not control for it in our calculations.

* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

From a big-picture standpoint, isn't it defeatist to head off any discussion of further restrictions on gun purchases based on the premise of "well, we could never get them out of the hands of the 'bad guys', so, you know...we're stuck allowing everyone that's not certifiably insane to have one." Really? Imagine all the things we've done in this country that were against all reasonable odds, and in the face of a deafening chorus of naysayers.

If the Principal was licensed, trained and carrying a hand gun, or better yet every teacher openly carried one, do you think the young man would have even entered the building. Before you mock, the Colorado theater shooter by passed both a closer and larger theater to go to the one that posted "No concealed hand guns allowed".

If the Principal was licensed, trained and carrying a hand gun, or better yet every teacher openly carried one, do you think the young man would have even entered the building. Before you mock, the Colorado theater shooter by passed both a closer and larger theater to go to the one that posted "No concealed hand guns allowed".

Of course he would. And he would have had his weapon drawn giving him the advantage.

The man was insane. Trying to argue about what would be logical for someone to do misses that point.

If the Principal was licensed, trained and carrying a hand gun, or better yet every teacher openly carried one, do you think the young man would have even entered the building. Before you mock, the Colorado theater shooter by passed both a closer and larger theater to go to the one that posted "No concealed hand guns allowed".

Simply unrealistic thoughts! What you propose is to have an all out war in a school and thus have more innocents murdereded! Start with replacing the previous ban on all automatic guns in the USA. Remember, the guns used in this tragedy were all legally purchased and they certainly should have been locked up to keep them under control. especial from someone that had a mental problem. It is a beginning but automatic guns are used for one simple reason - killing! People and guns kill people!

Typically, someone with a more liberal mindset will speak about "gun control" and people with a more conservative mindset hears "take away all our guns and leave us defenseless". Gun control is too broad a term. It's difficult to have an opinion either way with such a broad statement. "Stricter"... how much stricter?

The problem is that the gun lobby resists any and every form of gun control claiming it is part of a slippery slope to a complete ban.

That is not going to stop gun control. It is just going to mean that a complete ban is the only option left when the next massacre happens.

What is the difference between NAMBLA and the NRA? NAMBLA doesn't want to help the men kill the kids.

Gun owners have a choice here. Either agree to a sensible ban on assault weapons, high capacity clips and some controls preventing criminals and the mentally ill getting hold of them or continue on the scorched earth, resist all compromises strategy and face your worst case outcome.

The only way to keep the guns is to find an effective way to stop the massacres. If the massacres continue then we are going to get a total ban.

I actually own some legal versions of assault rifles. They are fun to shoot at the gun range but they are not very good for hunting. I am an excellent marksmen and grew up with guns. I can tell you that assault weapons are extremely deadly. They are easy and cheap to convert to fully automatic and they are easy to use. There really isn't much reason for private citizens to be carrying them around. When psychos get their hands on them they are so much more dangerous than handguns or hunting rifles. I cannot really defend them.

There is another extremely deadly gun that is legal to own, it is the 50 caliber sniper gun. It is not for the weak. You can legally purchase armor piercing ammunition for it and it will penetrate armored vehicles. One sniper could devastate a police department. I have never understood why this gun was legal. I have shot one and yes it was awesome, but still, people other than military or police SWAT teams have no business with one of those guns.

As I have previously stated, I am a gun owner and a hunter. I very much enjoy collecting antique working guns. I do enjoy hunting the best with either a muzzle loading black powder rifle or a bow. It is much more of a challenge. Even though I am a gun enthusiast I easily realize that there are people that should never posses a firearm. I don't have many answers on how to keep guns out of hands of truly dangerous people. I think there should be a longer waiting period before someone can actually take possession of their gun when they buy it. Thorough background checks need to be made before a purchase can be made. I can certainly understand if more prohibitions are made on assault rifles.

PS. Teachers don't need to be going around carrying guns, the principal either! Where I grew up there was a police resource officer on all campuses at all times. That was to mainly curb drug use and sales on school property. This would be expensive but maybe all schools should have a policeman on the campus. Big schools more than one policeman. I am sure our governments waste money on something less important, let them spend OUR tax money on something that provides security for our children.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.